Lateral Knee Pain Requires a Thorough Assessment and Adequate, Best-Practice Intervention
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dear Editor: The article “Treatment of Lateral Knee Pain Using Soft Tissue Mobilization in Four Female Triathletes” by Winslow in the September 2014 edition of IJTMB,(1) is a good example of a clinical report. As a physiotherapist and clinical researcher, I am interested in the clinical reasoning and interventions used by colleagues. The clinical study involved four triathletes who had lateral knee pain for more than seven months, and who had undergone prior conservative treatment by other health care professionals. Although the physical assessment and intervention were described and the results for all athletes were positive at completion, I think it is important to discuss the methodology and approach described in this clinical report. Although the author stresses the importance of “an accurate diagnosis, ruling out other common causes for lateral knee pain” (p.29), the presented information suggests the diagnostic screening was not comprehensive and inconclusive. Physical assessment comprised merely of single tests of knee ligaments, menisci, and hamstring and iliotibial band flexibility. Apart from the flexibility tests, no test results were presented. In the report (p.25, p.29) it reads that the athletes’ “lateral knee pain” was different from iliotibial band syndrome (ITBS). However, the location and severity of the pain experienced during treadmill running was similar to the pain typical for ITBS. Also, the soft tissue mobilization was largely targeted at the ITB. ITBS has a specific clinical presentation, and is often diagnosed by ruling out other pathologies, history taking, and a specific test,(2) such as Noble’s compression test.(3) However, no specific ITBS test was performed, or its results are lacking. Therefore, this report remains unclear with regard to the diagnosis at the time of initiating treatment. Functional assessment included “squatting and jumping” (p.27), but no results were presented. Treadmill running was performed to assess pain severity only. An extended value would be to evaluate ITBS-related factors such as running technique(4,5) and hip abductor weakness.(6) That a more thorough assessment (of both body structures and active functioning) for accurate diagnosis is preferred, is highlighted by the finding that one patient was left undiagnosed from meniscal problems for more than four weeks (p.29). The intervention consisted of instruction “to abstain from all physical activity” and “soft tissue mobilization only” (p.28). This intervention seems not an evidence-based or best-practice approach.(2,7–9) To instruct triathletes to abstain from all physical activity for four weeks is not reflective of best-practice. Cardiovascular fitness and other athletic ability will reduce significantly, and other sports including swimming (with no pushing off the wall with the affected leg) might be possible while recovering from lateral knee pain problems. Soft tissue mobilization I do support when required, but it might be limited as a sole intervention. Soft tissue techniques for ITBS are supported by evidence as part of the intervention,(2,7) but pain control, technique of and biomechanical factors in running and cycling, and involvement of the athlete in their recovery process by using adequate self-management strategies (for example, stretching, foam roller, muscle strengthening) should also be considered.(2,7) In responding to this clinical report, I hope to open discussion on the importance and usefulness of a comprehensive assessment to deduce the cause of the athlete’s problem and good clinical, reasoned interventions to treat athletes with lateral knee pain for a speedy, long-lasting return to their full training program.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,014 | 0,019 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».